Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

When I saw this headline in iGoogle this morning (yes, slashdot is the most prominent site I have there) of course my reaction was WTF???

It seems that English speaking countries are in a race to see who can become "Oceania" first. Britain is winning, but then again Eric Arthur Blair [wikipedia.org] was British. I'm starting to believe some of the wags at slashdot who say he was an optimist (I think someone's sig says it too).

The thing is, the fact that this kid was prosecuted says to me that any British subject can be thrown in jail at any time at all for saying anything at all. The dictionary [reference.com] puts no derogatory meaning at all to the word "cult".

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.3. the object of such devotion.4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.7. the members of such a religion or sect.8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

-adjective9. of or pertaining to a cult.10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

The only one of the eight definitions posted that can in any way be considered derogatory is fittingly #6 [wikipedia.org], and Scientology is certainly unorthodox and extremist. Then again, so are Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Judism (not to mention Atheism) in Britain (afaik), and Christianity is unorthodox and extremist in Muslim countries.

It is now illegal to discuss religion in Britain. If you are British and you post a comment in this thread, your government can throw you in jail.

But we in the US don't have a lot of room to talk. As I wrote [kuro5hin.org] two years ago,

But our own freedom to speak carries such heavy limitations that to think we are better than the Chinese is laughable. You can be arrested for "hate speech." If you badmouth the wrong corporation (and face it, the corporations are the government here, the politicians only being figureheads who do the corporations' bidding) you will be slapped down with a S.L.A.P.P. suit. You won't go to jail, but you will be financially ruined.

2600.org wasn't allowed to link to an algorithm (DeCSS). The courts have held that you have no freedom of speech when writing in a computer language.

Our freedom of speech is illusory.

Religion? Again there's China, and Cuba. However, I don't think that Christianity or Hinduism are illegal in Saudia Arabia.

On the other hand, children have been suspended and even expelled from school for evangelizing. They're being punished both for their speech and their religion.

As to freedom of assembly, that's been gone for quite some time. You want to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" by protesting en masse in front of the statehouse? You're going to go to jail for not having a permit- in short, you must have permission to petition the government by peaceful assembly. Having to ask permission doesn't seem too free to me.

As I argued in the linked story, the US bill of rights in "our" Constitution has become meaningless in the last two centuries.

First, on matters of adherence to biblical doctrine, St. Francis said this: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity". This means that difference of opinion over worship style, dress, etc. should be unimportant, and shouldn't get in the way of focusing on the essentials of learning to follow God, and those differences don't define cults.

When defining a cult, Dr. Walter Martin (RIP) wrote the definitive work in the 1970's called "The Kingdom of the Cults". It is an exhaustive, massive reference book that simply points out where each and every religious group in the world differs from Biblical doctrine.

You know when you're in a cult when:

1) The group is led by a charismatic leader who demands obedience to his word above any others.2) The leader insists on doing your thinking for you, i.e. arranged marriages, etc.3) The group grants teachings that are not the Bible equal or greater standing than the Bible.4) The leader teaches that all other churches/groups/whatever are missing it, and only HIS way is really hearing God.5) The leader doesn't even attempt to live by his own principles.

It is fairly clear that the article is in fact pointing out far more sinister overtones "the City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology".

It would appear that an independent investigation by another regulatory authority needs to be carried out to investigate possibly corrupt links between the scientology cult and the London police force.

The cult has a history of being willing to traitorously infiltrate government legal authorities to serve it's own subversive and criminal purposes. Perhaps this flagrant abuse of the law will justly trigger that investigation. I am sure a lot of other countries will be taking a very close look at what happens in this case and whether the cult intends to or already has extended this pattern of behaviour into other countries.

Because that is how Scientology works - say something they don't like, and they will harass you with everything they can, quasi-legally. It is their entire strategy for defending themselves - attack their attackers.

I don't honestly know that I want the people to decide how the people are governed in a broad sort of way. In general, people as groups tend to panic. Things like the Constitution and UK Common Law may be fragile protection, but they are protection. If you'd actually asked them, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a majority of Americans would have favored an even more knee jerk reaction to 9/11 than actually occurred.

Besides, I'm not sure how it would help in this case. Even if "the people" were making the laws there would still be a need for enforcement therefore still something resembling police. This, so far, is not a case of "government overreaching", but rather "police overreaching". The police are part of the government, but ultimately they are individuals. It becomes a case of "government overreaching" if and only if the young man is prosecuted and found guilty. I wouldn't be half surprised if the the Crown Prosecutors drop this like a hot potato.

The phenomenon of anonymous, whatever you may personally think of their current "war" on Scientology, is something rather unique in human history. We have a relatively well coordinated, well mannered, peaceful "organization" having no membership, no particular leaders, no apparent fund-raising mechanism, and no organizational structure. Rather than being coordinated by a chain of command with structured communication channels, it seems to be organized chaotically by "memes" - ideas that become something like a cliche.

Despite all these properties which, in times past, would have been severe limitations, anonymous has now coordinated an international protest at dozens of cities around the world involving many thousands of people. This is simply incredible!

I believe thisto be an artifact of the Internet age, and a sign of things to come. While anonymous "members" appears to mostly consist of the younger college age, remember that the college kids of today are the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global telecommunications. Just like hippie movement of the 1960's was the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global communications in the form of television, so does the current new generation of anonymous represent the first generation to grow up with the Internet.

As a self-proclaimed Internet addict, I've watched anonymous with interest - the "memes" that provide so much power within anonymous apparently comprise nothing more than an idea posed by someone that others enjoyed and repeated. Anybody can throw up an idea, and the classic value of "reputation" seems to be lost, here. Ideas are presented by anyone, and when repeated by others who like the idea, they become memes. And memes are, as much, a way of doing or presenting information as it is the information itself. For example, there's a common theme in Digg articles of repeating adjectives. EG: "The lame article is lame". Of course, there's Rick-rolling, variations of "LOL", and a few others.

Could this meme-based anonymous evolve into a world government? In a sense, it already has, because this structure of memes is already coordinating the behavior of thousands! Why couldn't this evolve into a new way of governing? My guess is that anonymous evolves into a sort of meta-government. Rather than directly become a government agency, it becomes a sort of unstructured political party that exerts considerable power at the voting booth, and is able to reinforce its power through real-life protests and events, much like those going on against Scientology today.

You seriously want the people to vote on every single bill that is signed into law? Nothing would ever get done. The entire budget would be spent on elections. And no one has time to read through every bill that goes before congress and understand it. That is why congressmen have huge staffs -- to help them wade through the legislation that they have to deal with. I'm sorry, but your system is completely impractical.

If you want to get really technical, one could serve as POTUS indefinitely by continuing to be elected to the office of Vice President and bumping off the latest President-elect before inauguration day.

It's not a very practical loophole...voters might get suspicious after this happened a few times.

Indymedia has a good article about this [indymedia.org.uk]. The protester, ironically, was objecting to "Fair Play", which is essentially harassment of any and all perceived foes. The citation identifies him and now he faces the same retaliation he objected to.

Quoth Wiki: Dramatic (or tragic) irony is a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.

You are receiving this reply because you responded to a/. or usenet post with the pedantic "That's not the proper use of irony" reply, or some variant. *This* reply is to point out that, in your anal retentive zeal to show the world how smart you are, you obviously never even bothered to research the issue (beyond hearing your high school English teacher get all pissy about the issue once). Had you researched the issue, you would know that there is an academic disagreement [wikipedia.org] within the field of modern linguistics between "descriptive linguistics" and "prescriptive linguistics," over this very sort of issue.

To put this in clear and simple terms (for your benefit): There is no "the" definition of irony. It depends on what source you consult.

To put it in even CLEARER terms: Sit down and shut the fuck up, you ignorant smug twat.

1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

The Scientologysts themselves always claimed to be 2. & 3. The whole point is that they are not, they are a profit-seeking corporation.I think the teen can use meaning 1. without qualifying as "threatening, abusive or insulting". This was, after all, an anti-Scientology demonstration. There's nothing insulting or abusive in calling your religion false, most form of orgnised religion claim that every other religion is wrong.Otherwise, it should be illegal to use any kind of signs of religious nature: if I have a poster declaring Cthulhu the only God and savior, that would imply you belief in The Spaghetti Monster as the only God and savior is wrong, thereby insulting or abusive.

City of London is just one of 30 boroughs of the city named London. Confusing, I know. To make matters more confusing, City of London have it's police force (the rest of London's policing is done by the Metropolitan Police as pointed out in the article) and City of London has it's own Lord Mayor not to be confused with the Mayor of London.

City of London is the "original" London, where most of the settlements dating back to Roman times can be found. Now it's mainly a financial centre, and not many people live there.

Generally City is under tighter control than the rest of London, and it doesn't surprise me that it was City of London police that acted like idiots.

Once again, what would seem a basic 'right' is being brutally oppressed by an organization under the cloak of 'religion'. I wonder just how much longer this will continue? Until we are all 'clears' or cleared out of our money from the lawsuits?

Apart from Articles 10 and 11 of European Convention on Human Rights? Part of Human Rights Act.

Try and remember that first section of US constitution is based on English Bill or Rights (1689) and Scottish Claim of Right, which itself carries on a tradition of defining the limits of state power and citizens rights dating back to Magna Carta (which predates Columbus by 200 years).

Worth thinking about every time americans get all misty eyed about their own history.

That's not to say the UK is a perfect democracy, but neither is the US.

Now in this case, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, it seems like the original act was too strict.

However, this guy has to go in front of a jury. A jury is likely to be more sympathetic to him than the "Behead those who insult Islam" types. You can think of the British system pre Human Rights Act as follows

1) Bad things happen like the Sloan Square demonstration.2) The Media covers them and whips up a firestorm of panic3) The government gets legal advice as to whether existing legal powers are enough to stop Bad Things happening again.4) They introduce new legislation and/or brief the police/CPS to use their powers more aggressively. The police arrest people and the CPS decides whether there is a case for them to answer in court.5) New legislation might cause false positives like this case where harmless people are prosectuted6) Hopefully the government will advise the police/CPS not to do this in future and possibly amend legislation7) The people prosecuted should be found not guilty because the jury is briefed, or maybe the judge will throw the case out. Or maybe they will get busted in which case the media will stir up a firestorm and force the government to legislate.

It's kind of funky but the system does have checks an balances. Of course the Human Rights Act allows people prosecuted in step 7 to appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights or judges to strike down legislation which breaks the HRA. Which is not really a good thing if you believe in the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty", but there you are.

And before Americans sneer that this is adhoc, you're right. But this system has led to a stable society where individual freedoms have either increased or stayed constant for hundreds of years, far longer than the US system has existed.

What makes him (and me) so sure it's without legal merit is that even if a judge were to consider calling Scientology a cult, despite the fact that they've been called so by the judiciary in the UK before, "insulting", restricting him from putting it on a sign is almost certainly inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, and British judges have a history of not being afraid to strike down bad legislation (and if they don't, the European Court of Justice seems to have striking down bad UK laws as something of a hobby, to the point where parliament sometimes seem to find it acceptable to vote for bad laws to satisfy their electorate safe in the knowledge they'll never pass a legal test).

And GP is right that this can be brought before a magistrate prior to, or instead of, a jury trial.

In fact, ratification of the Constitution was in doubt due to the observation of the people that there were no protections of individual rights in the document. Promises of amendments to correct this issue were finally agreed to by states in order to get the constitution passed.

Only then were people's rights enshrined in in the first 10 amendments, the most important of which and the least observed being Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In fact, that single amendment would have sufficed and we would be better off with just that single amendment. Too many people believe the constitution enumerates our rights. This is totally backward. The constitution Limits Government. Something sadly lacking in Britain.

the set of amendments to the constitution which form the bill of rights in the US closely match - and indeed were derived from the English/Scottish bills/claims of right from 1689. This is, I'm afraid, fact - phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" come from English bill of rights.
The UK doesn't have a single written constitution (for complex historical reasons), but there are plenty of documents (for example Margna Carta) which were developed in the UK and limit state power. It's absurd to suggest that the UK does not have systems in place to limit the power of the state.
The US system of politics/government didn't develop in a vacuum.
Many of the ideas of the US constitution were based on UK law (hardly a surprise) and modified to suit the particular ideology/politics/beliefs of early US politicians. It's probably fair to say that some aspects of the US model have been a success, and some less so.
it is easy to pick holes in both US and UK systems of government, and neither represents a perfect democracy, but it is difficult to argue that they don't both share a common root.

Further proof to support your point: the US Declaration of Independence sites as one the grievances against George III that he tried to deny the colonists their rights as "Englishmen". So obviously those rights must have been previously recognized in England, for the colonists to have assumed they had them.

The Human Rights Act is flimsy at best though. The First Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't include a list of exceptions longer than the amendment itself, whereas the HRA states that freedom of expression may be curtailed "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary". The fact it includes 'morals', which are entirely subjective, demonstrates just how flimsy it is.

In the UK, I can say "Gordon Brown is a noxious prick" without any legal repercussions.If I was in the US, I couldn't say that about George W Bush without being arrested.

I've lived in the US my whole life. Saying that any politician is a prick, fruad, cheat, liar, bastard, @#$#head or worse is constitutionally protected political speech. People can, and do voice their opinion on our leaders with bumper stickers, rants on national television, signs, t-shirts and more. Bush is more often the target than not. We have the absolute right to criticize our politicians. We have no thought police, despite peoples best attempts to imagine them!

What we are struggling with here is the right to peacefully assemble to voice these opinions where, say George Bush is going to give a speech at a graduation. The haters want to disrupt the event (which would fall out of bounds of our right to *peacefully* assemble), and Bush just wants to deliver his speech (and believe me, he doesn't want distractions).

"I can stand on a public street corner and say "George W. Bush sucks big hairy donkey dicks!" all I want..."

Uh, no you can't. There are still obscenity laws, and they are enforced when complaints are made, especially if minors are within earshot.

I knew a guy who was charged for shouting an obscene comment to a buddy while they were kayaking near a swimming area. The Christian youth group that was having an outing on the shore apparently called the police who were waiting when my friend came ashore. He ended up with ten hours of community service or some such nonsense, probably because the church members showed up at the court en masse as some sort of statement.

I think you should have said "I read a story about a guy..." because we read it too. And that way when you find out that his conviction was overturned on appeal, you won't look so silly.

"TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.

A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River."

If you knew the guy like you implied, you'd know that too.

And the obscenity laws you talk about have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional when challenged.

No, a man called Steve Hassan wrote some good guidelines for the destructive behavior of cults, at http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/faq/ [freedomofmind.com]. One key is the control over thoughts on members, insisting that they not only behave but that they think in certain ways. Scientology has this one down pat with their lie-detectors and 'auditing'. Another key factor is the pyramid scheme: Each level reports only to the upper levels, all data is centralized in thehands of a few, and any attempt to question leaders or shift dogma is met with harsh controls and even destruction of the questioning person.

Take a look at factnet.org for some history of this cult, and take a look at Susan Meister's case and her book, 'Scandal of Scientology', or hte old Time magazine article. They claim they shut down the internal security group that harassed Susan, but they seem to have simply transferred the leading personnel to other groups, and some of them are still active. This includes Kendrick Moxon, the attorney who successfully destroyed Cult Awareness Network.

More bizarre and/or insane than what? FFS man, talking telepathically to an imaginary friend who is solely responsible for all that happens in the universe (including putting dinosaur bones in place as is to fool us) compares to evil galactic rulers and volcanoes in a better light in exactly what way?

I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.

Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.

Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.

At a 'technical' level you are right, the bible is no less crackpot than the scientology 'technology'.

One difference is that a lot of the various testaments have a good historical basis. For Instance I have no doubt about the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.. they really existed! - Whether they were the son of god/prophet of god/being of divine light/etc is another question.. I believe they were just charismatic good people who others naturally followed. None of them seem particularly evil; that comes from those who followed them and wanted to assume that power over others for their own.

The difference is in attitude, reputable religions want to spread the word. eg. I have a bible, a translation of the qur'an, and other texts; all of which were given to me for free by believers who genuinely believe that by reading the words I'll become converted.

Compare and Contrast that to how Scientology spreads it's word...

Even the nastiest promoters of mainstream religion (the religious right, jihadists, etc.) are very open about their beliefs. Unfortunately their methods are often similar in terms of infiltrating institutions and crushing dissent.

At a protest outside a Scientology building, I saw a rather appropriate sign:Ask a Christian about the Bible, and he'll tell you.Ask a Jew about the Torah and he'll tell you.Ask a Muslim about the Koran and he'll tell you.Ask a Scientologist about HIS holy books and he'll tell you... after your check clears.

Say what you will about Christianity and other modern religions, (and I will) they're not, at their core, pyramid schemes for making profits. Scientology is.

How does bizarreness matter? The cult of scientology believes that evil space aliens murdered billions of other aliens by stuffing them into DC-10 like spaceships and blowing them up in earth's volcanoes with Hydrogen bombs. The cult of christianity believes that you can telepathically communicate with a dead god-fragment and tell him you love him and that he will accept you into his kingdom and cleanse you of a taint that was placed in all humanity by a rib-woman being tricked by a talking snake.
Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.

Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.

A religious cult, to the best of my understanding, shows the following features:
1) Is widely accepted to be a cult by those not involved. [like Scientology]
2) Is secretive regarding the beliefs of its members. [like Scientology]
3) Is secretive regarding the hierarchical organization of its members. [like Scientology]

To me, #3 is most concerning, and the best way to be labeled as a religious cult. Notice that almost all 'mainstream' religions are not guilty of #3 (e.g., the Catholic buck stops at the Pope), and rarely guilty of #2 (e.g., Muslims can point to the Koran), and also rarely guilty of #1.

4) In order to easier manipulate them, it will try to weaken the members by severing their ties with their families and friends.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" [...] do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God... Deuteronomy 13:6-10

A fundamental difference I see between a cult and a true religion is that members of a cult are not "allowed" to leave. A Christian might decide he no longer is one, but his Christian friends will not (generally) shun him, refuse to associate with him, actively try to harm him, or just plain hold him prisoner somewhere. A cult on the other hand fundamentally is a game of mind control, and some people are too strong to be controlled, either right up front (as in a child growing up) or as a result of new information or other change. Cults can only maintain their internal consistency if people who learn otherwise are treated as "sick" or a "traitor", and dealt with accordingly.

Situations like this case are a direct side-effect of the fact that cults cannot take any kind of scrutiny or disagreement, even from outside their ranks. Scientology is really good at silencing any kind of debate.

At the risk of being wildly un-PC, a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder. Islam in the US may be more "tolerant", but that's only (IMO) a side-effect of being forced to work within a western set of laws. In the Middle East, a convert away from Islam tends not to live very long, unless they immigrate away as fast as they can, thereby losing their entire family, etc. As well, an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.

(disclaimer: I'm Baptist, and mostly on the Democrat side of things with Libertarian leanings)

a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder.

The Mormon church not only allows people to leave, there is an established process for removing your name from the records. You *will* be hassled about this if you opt to try it -- most leaders will make you ask a few times, they'll ask you if you're sure, they'll try to talk you out of it -- but in the end, they will drop you.

There's also the easier option, which consists of simply not going anymore and avoiding the people who periodically come by to try to reactivate you. I've heard a few outlandish tales of machinations in member's lives, but for the most part, the only tool the Mormon church has is outright preaching and a bit of peer pressure. It is remarkably easy to do whatever the hell you want, especially if you have even the smallest idea of when to keep your mouth shut.

an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.

I'd be interested to hear how you came by this the idea that everyday purchases are affected by religious affiliation with any real frequency in Utah, because it's complete bullshit.

There are a variety of problems I think someone who publicly leaves/denounces the Mormon church in Utah is likely to encounter, but with a few exceptions, they're pretty much all going to be directly related to coloring of social interactions with former peers inside of the church. But not only is there a significant enough non-Mormon presence inside of Utah that this wouldn't matter from an economic perspective, I don't believe I've met the Mormon that would actually refuse to sell to an ex-member.

I agree wholeheartedly. Christianity, and especially Islam would be seen as completely psychotic if they were not several thousand years of tradition surrounding these religions, and countless reforms to make them remain relevant in our technologically advanced world. Christianity has changed especially in its nature drastically over the last century alone. It just seems normal to us.

That doesn't make it any less a cult. Its still hurting us collectively.

Christianity, and especially Islam would be seen as completely psychotic if they were not several thousand years of tradition surrounding these religions, and countless reforms to make them remain relevant in our technologically advanced world.

"Several" thousand years would seem to overstate the matter. Muhammad was born around 570, and we apparently date the Gregorian calendar beginning with some guy in year 0 or something, around 2008 years ago.

A world-spanning religion based on ancient Egyptian religion, now that would be millennia.

2. They didn't know it was year 1 at the time. That whole thing was worked out many, many years later. It turns out that the guy that worked it out was wrong. The best guess is that the fellow you're talking about was born in 4 BC, but given the state of record keeping at the time (particularly given that fellow's official status at the time of his life and death), that has to be taken with a "Lot's wife" sized grain of salt.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

Well, definitions vary wildly. In the course of my (philosophy) degree, I did quite a bit of study into religion, and generally speaking the following are considered good indicators of a "cult", though there is no single universal set of definitive criteria.

So, in general, a "cult":

Typically follows one or more highly charismatic leaders, whose word is taken to be unquestionable.

Clearly divides the world into "us" and "them".

Believes that the world outside the "us" group is fundamentally bad/evil.

As a result, believes that interaction with the outside world is dangerous to members of the "us" group and is to be avoided when possible, or carefully supervised.

As a result, tends to form more or less isolated enclaves to minimize contact with outsiders, or mediate such contact through trusted group members in positions of authority.

As a result, believes that untrained persons interacting with the outside world are tainted and need to be carefully reassimilated to the group.

Typically holds beliefs radically different from what is considered mainstream or acceptable for the immediately-surrounding society.

As a result of the above, typically experiences a high degree of tension with the outside world, which can create a feedback loop (above tendencies lead to tension, which aggravates above tendencies, which leads to more tension...).

Of course, many groups show one or more of these tendencies, but aren't widely considered (and really shouldn't be considered) "cults". And some groups that are "cults" show none of these tendencies. And this status can evolve over time; for example, many early Protestant movements were, by these criteria, "cults" at the time of their founding, but -- as Protestantism gained wider acceptance -- became closer to the mainstream and so lost many of the above tendencies.

"The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."

That's comforting. I wonder how many American cops, politicians, etc. the cult has on its payroll? Might as well disband the FBI and enlist Scientology as our intelligence service -- they seem to be much more effective at getting away with domestic espionage and dirty tricks.

Much more effective than you can imagine. Check out this fascinating article about conspiracies that actually happened [cracked.com]. One of the entries is about Scientology's fairly successful effort at stealing back documents that made them look bad. From the government.

From the article:

Anyway, somewhere around 5,000 of Scientology's crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.

Gotta love it! It is disheartening that it seems every European country, and Canada too, seems to have some kind of idiotic anti-speech law(s).

The scientology thing just serves to unmask this rather gigantic lapse in liberty. I think a better question than whether the kid is guilty or not is why you Brits have such laws. Further why aren't you outraged that such laws exist and why you aren't actively trying to overturn them? This isn't a flame but a serious question, since when the slightest bit of censorship rears its head in America we tend to jump all over it - as evidenced by the Youtube article still on the frontpage.

Can someone explain to me how this works. Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech. From this side of the pond, Britain clearly needs to get it's priorities straight before the movie "Brazil" because a reality.

He may have been better off advocating the death of all Scientologists because the FSM needs their blood to build the greatest pirate ship of all time.

It's a ticket, cops love to write tickets... here in the USA a group of local kids were arrested, shackled and prosecuted for carrying signs in a public park in protest of police brutality - there's irony for you. The cops even recorded themselves on video joking about taking off their badges and starting a fight.

engage a pro bono and use your time in the witness box to introduce every single piece of evidence you or anyone else can think of to prove the case, subpoena the entire board of directors and introduce the public to their Naval Division. I should imagine the tabloids will devour this case. M'lud I would like to submit exhibit a) as evidence for the defense - The McLibel Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel [wikipedia.org] I would hazard an ejimacated guess, however, that it will never go to trial. The again, perhaps the present government is in need of a circus to distract everyone from their present poor standings. What could be better than a cult of goats?

I want to add to what cynicsreport said earlier in this topic. The word "cult" has commonly accepted definitions, and if Scientology fits that definition, then the sign was a statement of fact.

In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.

It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.

He hasn't received a summons.He's not being taken to court.He was warned, by a somewhat overzealous police officer, that he might have been in breach of the law, and he had his sign confiscated.

The Crown Prosecution Service, who are the people who decide whether a prosecution will take place, have been told that these events happened. And will decide whether to proceed. If anyone wants to bet $10 to say they will, I'll gladly take your money here and now.

Why the heck is this tagged censorship? There's a law against insulting signs.

Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.

Would this still be tagged censorship if it were the Conservative Party instead of Scientology?

Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.

You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)

"Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."

Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.

For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are:

cult

a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.

a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.

something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.

Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.

Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)

Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.